brokenhead wrote:Your view of a breakdown of the good things in society evidenced by tighter gun control may very well be true. But it might also be a simple result of the existence of too many handguns, period.

Or just too many people!

And even the solid citizen can snap. Stricter gun control might be a sign of not the breakdown of society, but its maturation from a frontier to a more civilized form. It may be inevitable.

It looks to me like it boils down to anxiety levels. This is partly related to the amount of people per square mile, but also to the extensive social interaction more and more people are exposed to. And if not, the media takes care of feeding anxiety by 'informing' us of how terrible and scary the world is, 24 hours a day.

In that sense you might be right that 'super-civilized' or 'metropolized' societies will have to be controlled more and more to make it work. If that's maturing or a form of last-days stiffening - that depends on what is being valued.

brokenhead wrote:Your view of a breakdown of the good things in society evidenced by tighter gun control may very well be true. But it might also be a simple result of the existence of too many handguns, period.

Or just too many people!

So we should get rid of some people instead of the guns? If that's the argument, then I guess we should do nothing, since the guns themselves do a pretty good job of getting rid of people. Ah yes, society is just adjusting itself because of overpopulation, and guns are nothing more than mere facilitators, catalysts, if you will.

Well, that's one way to look at it. As long as you can afford to live in a safe neighborhood.

DHodges wrote:If you really want to reduce gun violence, I think a strong argument could be made in favor of drug legalization - ending the "war on drugs." A large part of gun violence is related to drug trafficking in some way.

You are probably right about that. And I could save a lot of gas money if I quit working and didn't have to drive to a job every day, but that's not exactly a stellar idea, either.

What would prevent heroin from devastating the US the way it did to China in the nineteenth century? China was forced to allow the British to sell opium to its citizens. At gunpoint, by the way. And that's just one addictive drug. So to make the gun death statistic lower, you would make heroin and cocaine and crystal meth legal to buy and sell in the US. Dave, people cannot give up cigarettes, despite the cost in dollars and in health. If you legalize substances much more addictive, what then? There are functional smokers, but functional smack addicts? People - people like me - tend to quit when they hit bottom. Legalizing hard drugs will ensure they drag more people down with them as they do. I'm pretty sure that if you made narcotics use legal, significantly more people would use them, and society would be left footing the bill to clean up the consequent mess they cause.

That's just what I want to see happen. People who cannot function but would sell their kids for the legally tolerated heroin rush. Desperate people who, by the way, would also legally be allowed to purchase guns. What's wrong with this picture?

DHodges wrote:The 20th Century gives many examples of the importance of this right, especially of people needing to protect themselves from their own government. During the 20th Century, about 170 million people were killed by their own governments. The typical pattern was for a group to be disarmed, their weapons confiscated, and then those people would be rounded up and killed.

But that would never happen in our country, right? (drips with sarcasm)

The American Civil Liberties Union today demanded information from the government about reports that an active military unit has been deployed inside the U.S. to help with "civil unrest" and "crowd control" – matters traditionally handled by civilian authorities...."This is a radical departure from separation of civilian law enforcement and military authority, and could, quite possibly, represent a violation of law," said Mike German, ACLU national security policy counsel and former FBI Agent. "Our Founding Fathers understood the threat that a standing army could pose to American liberty...."

That may very well be, but I have not seen the evidence. You are saying that most Columbine-type incidents are linked in that the shooters were all taking medication that affects their minds. So we blame these tragedies on the pharmaceutical companies pushing doctors to over-prescribe? Pharmaceutical companies should be blamed because their product - one that can have a very beneficial use - was misused,

Well, I have seen some evidence. I wouldn't necessarily say we should blame Big Pharma, but then, when you read things as I do, you do notice that large moneyed interests do a lot of things to increase their profits which are dishonest, greedy, and not in the best interests of the public. Prescribing these meds is way out of hand, and sometimes a lot of coercion is used.

Zoloft is a prescription med for a reason. You did a foolish thing and had a bad reaction.

No doubt, but it was an invaluable experience, because if I had not done that I would find it hard to believe that a drug could take away one's rationality and perspective. And here is where I find your thinking conventional, by the way: you imply that if only a doctor had prescribed this drug, nothing bad would have happened! If that drug were not right for me, it would not have been prescribed. Do you realize how many drugs have been pulled from the market since I became a legal drug pusher? Pulled because they kill and injure people. As for the psych drugs, these cases of violence and suicide are from legal prescriptions. Sure, the doctor knows a few things, perhaps he would have started at a lower dose (but I took a low dose) or for some reason thought that particular drug wopuld not be good for me. Usually, they can't tell any such thing, and just say, "Try this, try that." They are for the most part experimenting. How can they not be with so many new ones coming down the pike all the time?

I know your Dad was a doctor, but I think he was very different from the modern breed. Foreign doctors are often better diagnosticians and think of causes and how to be healthy.

brokenhead wrote:What would prevent heroin from devastating the US the way it did to China in the nineteenth century? China was forced to allow the British to sell opium to its citizens. At gunpoint, by the way. And that's just one addictive drug. So to make the gun death statistic lower, you would make heroin and cocaine and crystal meth legal to buy and sell in the US. Dave, people cannot give up cigarettes, despite the cost in dollars and in health. If you legalize substances much more addictive, what then? There are functional smokers, but functional smack addicts? People - people like me - tend to quit when they hit bottom. Legalizing hard drugs will ensure they drag more people down with them as they do. I'm pretty sure that if you made narcotics use legal, significantly more people would use them, and society would be left footing the bill to clean up the consequent mess they cause.

That's just what I want to see happen. People who cannot function but would sell their kids for the legally tolerated heroin rush. Desperate people who, by the way, would also legally be allowed to purchase guns. What's wrong with this picture?

I didn't really expect to have to argue the point, as I thought it was well understood and accepted that the war on drugs has been an abysmal failure. I'll just make a few points, and if you want to discuss it further, it should probably get its own thread.

Let me also state for the record here that I do not take any illegal drugs, and am not advocating that anyone else should either.

First, I pretty consistently advocate for the rights of the individual, and limiting government involvement where possible. I feel I am better qualified - as a responsible adult - to make decisions as to what I will or will not consume, than the government is. (Of course, in any case, I am responsible for my actions, should not be driving while intoxicated and so on.)

Second, legalizing hard drugs would likely not lead to a huge increase in usage. I believe this has been shown in other countries that are less enthusiastic about drug inforcement, but is also shown by the failure of the "War on Drugs" to significantly reduce drug usage. Inappropriate drug usage should be combatted by education, not by law.

Third, there are responsible adults that are capable of using hard drugs and be functioning, productive members of society. You generally won't here about these people, just because they are responsible members of society, and don't go around robbing people and whatnot.

Fourth, many of the problems apparently caused by drugs are actually caused by the fact that they are illegal. Drug addicts commit crimes because their drugs are expensive; they are expensive because they are illegal. Overdoses happen because of the lack of quality and dosage control, and of course illegal suppliers have no legal liability to their users. Legalization could actually prevent deaths here.

The American experience of Prohibition (of alcohol) demonstrated that making something illegal does not make it go away, and can have unintended consequences. Prohibition led to the rise of violent (bootlegging) gangs, and a general disrepect for the law.

Some people can not be responsible users of alcohol, or gamble. That fact does not justify it being illegal for the rest of us. The proper response is to help those people, encourage education, and see to it that drug use is done in a responsible and safe way.

The current approach is like abstinence-only sex education. It just doesn't work.

DHodges wrote:I didn't really expect to have to argue the point, as I thought it was well understood and accepted that the war on drugs has been an abysmal failure. I'll just make a few points, and if you want to discuss it further, it should probably get its own thread.

No need for another thread, at least IMO. I have pretty much given my reasoning already.

No one is arguing that you are not qualified to decide what you should or should not consume. It can be argued, however, that not everyone is as intelligent as you are, or as rational.

Having used both alcohol and heroin, I can tell you that the effects are different and the potential for addiction is different. You cannot say that because society withstands legal alcohol usage, it would withstand legal heroin usage.

Ill give you my own history as an example. For most of my life, I used alcohol responsibly. I even took advantage of the relaxation of pertinent laws to make my own beer for a while as a hobby. At one point, though, perhaps due to circumstances (sudden loss of a great job), perhaps due to genes, my use turned to abuse. I became physically addicted to alcohol. Rehab and constant effort on my part have cleansed my of that addiction. I know I wouldn't become addicted again if I had a beer - the addiction threshold for alcohol is much higher than for other drugs. It can be used in a safe - and even wholesome - manner.

In my case, I simply choose total sobriety just to be safe and because the memories of the physical addiction are nightmarish.

Heroin is another drug altogether. The only way I have used it is by snorting. The effects are entirely different from those of alcohol, although they mix nicely if you're willing to risk puking.

I cannot conceive of a societally safe way to do heroin. Snorting is the least addictive method of consumption because it does not lead to the "needle rush."

I never became addicted to heroin, because I did not shoot it up and I did it only a few times. In other words, I dodged a bullet.

My point is simple - that all drugs are not the same. Cocaine and heroin are much, much more addictive than alcohol. If you legalized cocaine, you legalize crack. Like you said, purity would be more consistent if it were legal. Therefore, you make it easy and cheap to make freebase, which is what crack is. Crack is instantly addictive. Quitting crack and quitting smoking cigarettes are both very difficult, and some people die trying.

Second, legalizing hard drugs would likely not lead to a huge increase in usage. I believe this has been shown in other countries that are less enthusiastic about drug enforcement, but is also shown by the failure of the "War on Drugs" to significantly reduce drug usage.

Do you think the damage opium did to China in the nineteenth Century would not be replicated in the USA today? If narcotics were suddenly legalized, the supply-siders would have a field day. What other countries are you referring to? If heroin and cocaine were legal in the US, those who supply the drugs now would muscle in and take every advantage of their new legitimacy.

Let me venture to say that, as a nation, we would be healthier if people did not smoke cigarettes. The resources spent on treating tobacco's effects could be saved. Cigarettes are minimally psychoactive; their use, consequently, has little social value. The net effect of cigarette usage in the US is negative. In fact, cigarette smoking is something that even most smokers wish would simply go away.

But it won't. Because it is legal, and the tobacco industry is too much a part of the American economy.

So before you legalize heroin and cocaine, which would certainly not lead to their having a more of a beneficial impact on the American family than they already do, you might want to think twice. Because outlawing them again would be next to impossible, once they gained a foothold in the US.

Marijuana would be a different case, because it is a different substance. It could be legalized, and should be, because it is not addictive.

-Dan-This thread is precisely why I think America is a totally scary and fucked up nation. You don't know how to be sane. You literally don't. You talk about gun shit like it was the fucking 1700's.

There's a man with a gun over there

Cleveland Gun Rights Examiner

-snip-

Now we're going to talk about "hoplophobia," or fear of weapons. You'll note that phobias are generally disconnects with reality that impair the ability of their sufferers to enjoy life fully, and if severe enough, requires professional intervention and treatment.

Tomas wrote:Now we're going to talk about "hoplophobia," or fear of weapons. You'll note that phobias are generally disconnects with reality that impair the ability of their sufferers to enjoy life fully, and if severe enough, requires professional intervention and treatment.

The Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA) notes that question 59 - part of a 63-item questionaire given to Obama administration job applicants - asks for information about firearms owned by the applicant and his or her family.

"Question 59 provides clear insight into how Obama and his people perceive firearms owners," said ISRA Executive Director Richard Pearson. "...Obviously, Obama feels that owning a firearm is akin to talking dirty in Internet chat rooms."

Pearson says the attitude is not surprising, given that Obama -- as an Illinois State senator -- voted for SB1195, which included a provision calling for gun owners to be registered in the same manner as sex offenders.

"One of their first official acts is to make a list of gun owners among their own employees. It proves where their hearts are. It shows what their philosophy is..."

New York’s Mayor Michael Bloomberg's pet issue has been gun legislation. A class D offense has been upgraded to a class C: possession of a loaded firearm. Plaxico wrote in his book last year that he owns guns and can "take them apart in his sleep." Bloomberg will not let this one slip through any legal loopholes. He's already attacking the hospital that treated Burress for delaying reporting the gun injury.

Burress clearly had possession, and it was clearly loaded, since he shot himself in the leg. Lost in all this is that he lives in NJ, so he transported the gun across state lines.

The class C offense is a mandatory 2-year jail term minimum, maximum 15 years.

He's going to lose more than his position with the Giants.

He has worn out his welcome in New York before all this and has barely played at all this year, having apparently worn out his welcome with the Giants as well. He has formerly worn out his welcome with the Steelers.

i just wanted to say the second amendments mention of a "well regulated militia" refers to the regular white male citizen between the ages of 18 and 40. at the time the constitution was written, there was no regular military like force. The fact that a parson is required to receive a license is unconstitutional, and the fact that a person can be denied the right to carry goes against the basic right to protect ourselves and property. Incidentally, while people are being denied this right, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it is not a city's police force's responsibility to protect the citizens. Notice how "To Protect and Serve" is conspicuously missing drom police logos. Interesting....

Well since the cases of a registered firearm carrying person robbing the local Kwik-E-Mart are so low, it's obvious that we should ban all firearms! WTF?!

That is the kind of reasoning that is going to cripple our country. It will be a sad day when only the government and the criminals have weapons, and personally, I'd rather depend on the guy carrying a concealed than the men in blue for the safety of my neighborhood any day!